SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24

Feb/26/24 4:14:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said, I absolutely support workers and people's right to collectively bargain. What I have a problem with is that, when people do not come to the table in good faith, things go on and on and, all of a sudden, there are impacts on Canadian families, Canadian businesses and our export partners. These are things that could be eliminated. There are better ways of doing it. We need to look to other countries that do it better. I am very interested to hear about Quebec's legislation and what exactly it has done. I know there are some facilities, such as chemical facilities, etc., that would need that kind of protection.

116 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Feb/26/24 4:14:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the House gives its consent, I move that the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

40 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/26/24 4:15:00 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Feb/26/24 4:15:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to draw members' attention to an event that took place this weekend and that we have not yet discussed in the House, even though it is a major artistic event. I know that members may think that this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but there is a bit of a connection, and I think it is important to point it out. This weekend, two Quebeckers, a man and a woman, won international film awards. It is important to acknowledge that. On Saturday evening in Paris, Monia Chokri won the César award for best foreign film for The Nature of Love, beating Oppenheimer. This romantic comedy was directed by an actress and director from Quebec who has made movies with Xavier Dolan. She surprised everyone by cleaning up at the awards ceremony in Paris. Once again, Quebec is edging its way in and making its mark on the international scene. Our work is being seen everywhere. In Berlin on Saturday night, Philippe Lesage, a director in his forties with a few films under his belt, won the Berlinale Grand Prix of the international jury with a film called Who by Fire. I want to repeat something I have often said before. Although this prize for best foreign film was awarded to a film made in Canada, it is the creators, directors and artists from Quebec who make Canada famous abroad in this field, as in so many others. I have often spoken about that in the House. Soon, unfortunately, that will not be the case. Quebec is going to become independent in the next four or five years. When our artists shine at the Césars, the Oscars or Cannes, they will win awards while representing Quebec. We will still acknowledge Canada on the major world stages. We will thank Canada, which has contributed somewhat to our international reputation. Getting back to the bill at hand, I am always a little uncomfortable with this type of legislation. Quebec is a progressive place. We have said often in the past and we will say it again. Quebec has had anti-scab legislation since 1977. For non-federally regulated workers, this issue was settled 50 years ago. We settled the matter 50 years ago. If Quebec were independent, all Quebec workers would be governed by that legislation by now. There would be no scabs. It would be a non-issue. The same applies to a number of other areas, as I have already said in this place. We are in the midst of a housing crisis. Quebec has the most social housing of any province. Why? When the federal government withdrew from housing in 1993, the Government of Quebec stepped in and took over. It created a social housing construction program called AccèsLogis Québec, which has helped take some sting out of the crisis compared to other parts of the country. There are collateral effects. Interprovincial immigration will be one of the main causes of inflation in housing prices in the coming years. People are moving from Vancouver or Toronto to Gatineau and Montreal because rent is a little cheaper. There is also a housing crisis in Quebec. There are 10,000 homeless people on the streets in Quebec. I will also talk about that later. Homelessness has doubled in Quebec in the past five years. The only program that helps folks who are unhoused, the Reaching Home program, is going to be cut by 3% by that government over there. That may not seem like a lot. Some people think it is not so bad. Let us think about what the housing crisis means. It means single mothers sleeping in their cars in Trois‑Rivières. It means immigrant families who thought this would be an El Dorado or paradise, but who are sleeping in tents by the river in -30°C weather in Saint‑Jérôme. How can we stand for such a thing? The government is going to cut that program by 3% because it wants to show the Conservatives that it can be fiscally responsible. Because of that, it is turning its back on the most vulnerable. It makes absolutely no sense. Which province has the least amount of greenhouse gases and produces the least? Which province is performing best in a country that is not performing well at all? On every climate change indicator, Canada ranks last. It always comes dead last. This brings me to the IMF study that mentioned in 2022, Canada spent $50 billion on the oil industry. That is $50 billion in direct and indirect aid to the oil industry. How can we stand for such a thing in the middle of a housing crisis, when we need to build 3.5 million housing units according to the CMHC, but five million according to the latest study by CIBC? Imagine how far off the mark we are. In the meantime, people are sleeping in the streets, single mothers, women fleeing domestic violence, persons with disabilities and students are sleeping in their cars. They question these studies. We need these people. They are the workers of tomorrow. In the meantime, Canada, with support from the Conservatives, is throwing $50 billion at the oil companies, which raked in $200 billion in profits in 2022. How can we stand for such a thing? Speaking of progressive, Quebec has more women in the workforce than anywhere else in Canada. Why is that? It is thanks to day care. Who was behind the day care program? It was Pauline Marois, a great politician and a great woman from Quebec whom I salute today. She was premier and a visionary. Quebec created $5-a-day day care, government-funded day care. Two things happened as a result. It brought more women into the workforce, and it made it possible for Quebec to achieve the lowest child poverty rate in Canada. That is quite something. Those are big steps forward. Nowadays, we have sat back and watched Canada become more and more progressive. The government adopted the national child care program last year. That is great. It is hard for us to be against that, because we already had one. The same goes for the dental care program. It is hard for us to be against that, because we already had one. We cannot be against the pharmacare program either, because we already have one. We, the members of the Bloc Québécois, are sitting here in the House, discussing bills and battles that have already been waged and won. It is sad to say, but Canada is a millstone around Quebec's neck. We are ready to make progress and move forward, but Canada keeps holding us back. Canada keeps dragging its feet and maintaining the status quo. It is not moving forward. Inflation is out of control. More and more people are living in the streets. I spoke about it earlier. The federal government is failing seniors. It is not doing nearly enough to address climate change. Canada is not moving forward. Quebec is ready to push ahead, but Canada is standing in its way. What are Quebeckers supposed to think when they watch our debates and see these bills and the federal anti-scab bill? They are wondering why these measures have not been passed yet, why this has still not been settled, and whether the federal government is stuck in 1975. How can we trust this country? How can anyone want to be part of it? A Quebec worker looking at this, assuming know he does not work for the feds and knows nothing about it, would think the matter has been settled for 50 years. His company is not allowed to use scabs. He looks at this situation and wonders why Canada is still where it is and why this issue has not been settled. No, it is not settled. As my colleague said earlier, the Bloc Québécois has tabled 11 bills on this subject. We have been working on this for a long time. My NDP colleague said earlier that his party has introduced eight bills. The Liberals blocked them every time. It just does not make sense anymore. The Government of Canada has to move into the 21st century. It has to get into the business of protecting workers. Giving them leverage with employers is fundamental. It forms the basis of everything; otherwise, bargaining power does not exist. By the way, I forgot to mention that Quebec is the province with the highest unionization rate in Canada. Quebec understands the importance of banding together and the importance of unions. Quebec realizes that workers have more power against the employer when they work together. It is high time we—

1496 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/26/24 4:25:39 p.m.
Watch

We have to go to questions and comments now.

9 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Feb/26/24 4:25:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, maybe like you, I was so involved in listening to the hon. member that I wanted him to go on. Could the member mention the recent impacts on the Port of Montreal and the labour disputes, and how this legislation might help to add balance so that we do not have prolonged disputes, as we have seen recently in Montreal at the port?

65 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Feb/26/24 4:26:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will answer the question with another question. As my colleague mentioned earlier, workers have been there at the port of Québec for 200 days. They have been close to the breaking point for 200 days. They even had to find other jobs so they could stand up to the employer and keep the negotiations going. It has been 200 days. How can such a thing be accepted in Canada? These people have no leverage. Allow me to underscore once again that this bill will not become law until 18 months after it receives royal assent. What might happen in the next 18 months? There could be a federal election. What might happen in the federal election? The Conservatives could come to power. Does anyone seriously think that the Conservatives would vote for a bill put forward by the NDP and Liberals? I think not.

149 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Feb/26/24 4:27:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to follow Quebec's and B.C.'s leadership across this country to make sure that workers are protected. It has been very concerning for me to hear the Conservative rhetoric that somehow the workers are disrupting the flow of goods, which is absolutely shameful. When we think about the workers, what they are really doing is fighting for their rights to work collectively to make sure they are safe. I wonder if the member could talk a little about why it is important for workers to have rights and what that does for the economy and for the good of all people when those unions are respected.

115 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Feb/26/24 4:28:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I think I mentioned in my speech, respecting workers' right to negotiate with employers, to restore the balance of power with the employers, is the very essence of labour law. That is what good labour relations are all about. As my colleague said so well, if we want to negotiate working conditions that make sense and that align with the current inflationary situation, for example, workers need to have that leverage. It is fundamental. This needs to be resolved as soon as possible.

86 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Feb/26/24 4:28:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for his passionate speech. I would like to ask him a question that has really been bothering me. Last December, I received a letter from an organization in Trois‑Rivières, Les Artisans de la paix. They told me that their budget had been cut by $79,000 under the Reaching Home program. We are seeing more and more homeless people on the streets in Trois‑Rivières. A lot of people are experiencing homelessness. The distress is very real. I would like to ask my colleague the following question. When I get letters like the one from Robert Tardif, executive director of Les Artisans de la paix, who says that it is totally irresponsible and inconceivable to make cuts to such a program, how should I reply, in light of the 3% budget cut to the Reaching Home program?

155 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Feb/26/24 4:29:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a point. I talked about it in my speech. It is appalling that the government is cutting the only federal funding that goes to help these people. I have seen it too. I did a tour of Quebec last year. My colleagues know that. I saw the tent cities throughout Quebec. There are families there. There are single mothers with children there. It is terrible. There are students there. If the students are not living in tents, they are living in their cars. It is shocking. How can we stand for that? It is wintertime. The government is getting ready to cut just 3% from the budget, but it should be increasing the budget. We urgently need to take care of this. My colleague is right. Soon I will have my report from that tour, and it will include meaningful suggestions. He will hear about it.

151 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/26/24 4:30:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the Province of Quebec, the Province of British Columbia and, now, the federal government moving toward anti-scab legislation. How can this provide national leadership so that, hopefully, other provinces will look at the legislation, look at what other provinces are doing and look at bringing in more anti-scab legislation across the country?

66 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Feb/26/24 4:30:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I invite every province in Canada to follow Quebec's example. However, we are sorry that it is going so slowly that I think that Quebeckers are going to make a different choice in a few years so as not to endlessly repeat past battles. It is a fight we have already won in Quebec, and with Quebec's independence, we will consolidate these gains and all the others I mentioned earlier. It is coming soon.

78 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/26/24 4:31:22 p.m.
Watch

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Taxation; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Housing. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has the floor.

78 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/26/24 4:31:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, I thank the member of the Bloc Québécois for his kind introduction and his wonderful speech. This is my first speech about Bill C-58. The Green Party supports this legislative measure because it is necessary. I am so pleased that we have the opportunity to debate it, and I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of this bill. It is so important for workers' rights and employer-employee relations. I had the experience, before ever becoming involved in partisan politics, and the real honour of working on behalf of organized labour and trade unions. I was a lawyer with the only downtown firm in Halifax, in those days, that represented only union-side labour. All the other downtown firms in Halifax represented the employers. I had the great honour of working on behalf of the longshoremen's union, the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union and others. I understand something about labour relations and the importance of having leverage, having some way in which workers have tools to create balance so that the employer does not hold all the cards. We know that when a union goes into a legal strike position, it is very important that they are able to exercise those rights, because they are rights. The difficulty we have had in Canada over many years is that, in common parlance or the terminology, employers will use “scab” labour. Scab labour translates to the language in this legislation: “replacement workers”. It is the same thing. The slang term is “scab workers”. They are a serious threat to workers' rights. It has been a long time coming to this legislation, as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, who just spoke, pointed out. The province of Quebec has had legislation to prohibit the use of replacement workers during a legal strike or lockout. That legislation has been in place in Quebec for 46 years. I want to once again commend Quebec. The Province of Quebec has often been the first to implement such important measures. That was the case with day care and with workers' rights. Here we are, finally, in February, debating this legislation, at second reading before a vote, which was first tabled in November. While I was waiting for the opportunity to speak this afternoon, I went back over Hansard and tried to find any evidence of any speech from any Conservative member of Parliament that would let us know if they favoured the legislation or not. We just tried again with the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. I cannot find any clear indication, which means that I live in hope that my Conservative friends will be voting in favour of getting this legislation passed at second reading and to committee where it does need some improvements. An hon. member: Wait for the vote. Ms. Elizabeth May: Madam Speaker, my friends across the way said that they want to keep me in suspense. That is okay. Suspense is a lot of fun. I do hope that everyone in this place, across all party lines, will vote for this legislation. It does need amendments. I see that the United Steelworkers union has made it clear that it would like to see the exemptions and the loopholes in this bill, Bill C-58, removed. There are some exemptions that would allow certain categories of workers and volunteers to continue their activities during strikes and lockouts. That certainly undermines the core purpose of this legislation. The main purpose of this bill is to do away with the use of replacement workers. We do not need small loopholes that allow for the use of replacement workers. We do not need loopholes. We need to close them up and tighten them up when this bill gets to committee. Another place where I hope we can see improvements in committee is in getting rid of the 18-month delay before the bill would come into force. We have seen, as I mentioned, that the Province of Quebec has had this legislation for 46 years. The Province of British Columbia also has this legislation. A stable set of union-employer relations and a system of collective bargaining that is respected really matter. Both sides have their tools, and they need to have access to those tools. It is an unbalanced and therefore less economically secure situation for our economy when the tools to one side are removed. Strikes and lockouts actually last longer when scab labour is used. There is greater stability and greater security for our economy when scab labour is eliminated, and I would urge the government to amend the legislation to make this stronger. However, in looking at this and going back over Hansard to try to find any indication of how my Conservative friends were going to vote, I found that friends from South Shore—St. Margarets, Mégantic—L'Érable, Essex, Calgary Nose Hill, Calgary Rocky Ridge, Chilliwack—Hope, Provencher, Battle River—Crowfoot and Sarnia—Lambton made repeated reference to things that have nothing to do with this legislation. If I may, I will take a moment just to clarify. When we talk of replacement workers, we mean specifically one thing only: the use of scab labour when a union is in a legal position to strike or there is a lockout. Those are the situations in which replacement workers in this legislation, Bill C-58, are referenced and banned. It is unfortunate, then, that in so much of the very limited debate, consisting of basically three days, with a number of speakers, over and over again Conservative members have raised the Stellantis battery plant, its use of federal dollars and the fact that it is also subcontracting with South Korea. Numerous speakers have made the mistake of referring to workers, in the context of workers from South Korea working at the Stellantis battery plant as part of a trade agreement that was put in place by the previous Conservative government, as somehow being replacement workers. They are emphatically not replacement workers when they are from other countries under agreements that have been made. Certainly, the Green Party prefers that all workers in Canada are Canadian workers who live and work here, but we have many, many agreements with large multinationals to use workers from other countries. Just to be very, very clear for people watching from home, those workers are not replacement workers. They have nothing to do with this legislation. Therefore, despite references that somehow the Liberals are violating their own Bill C-58 by allowing 900 workers from South Korea at the Stellantis battery plant, saying that they are, as quoted from one of my Conservative colleagues, “essentially replacement workers”, I want to be very clear that they are essentially nothing of the sort. They have nothing to do with Bill C-58. They are not replacement workers. They are, in fact, workers from another country who have been brought in under the kinds of deals that have been organized between transnational corporations and various governments in this country. It is not my favourite thing to see workers come in from other countries, but let us not mix up our concepts, because it creates confusion in the public. This legislation is, purely and simply, about one thing and one thing only. That is to defend the rights of workers within trade unions to support organized labour in this country, which has given us so much. From work hours that are reasonable and banning child labour to many social improvements right across this country, we can thank organized labour. Workers who go out on strike should never have to see their colleagues crossing a picket line to continue to support the unfair practices of an employer when a union is in a legal strike position. With that, I would like to thank the House for its time and allow the Green Party to go on record as being strongly in favour of Bill C-58 and strongly in favour of improving it and strengthening it in committee.

1372 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Feb/26/24 4:41:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Green Party for her support of this bill. I wonder if the hon. member could talk a bit more about the maintenance of activities agreement that is proposed in this bill, whereby we would be working with the Canada Industrial Relations Board prior to any strike action to establish what maintenance activities are required for safety or environmental protection. This goal of having prior agreements would also help us to have fewer strikes, and shorter strikes if they do occur.

89 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Feb/26/24 4:42:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are reasonable elements to the proposition that before a strike there is an agreement on what is absolutely necessary to take place, but I am concerned by the criticisms from Unifor, the United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers and others that these represent potential loopholes. I would want to make sure that in expert evidence in committee it is absolutely nailed down that such provisions do not constitute loopholes that weaken the rights of workers.

78 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Feb/26/24 4:43:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, although I have the utmost respect for the member opposite, I want to clarify something for her. In my riding, with respect to the Stellantis deal and the 1,600 replacement Korean workers, workers went to see what was being done. It is carbon steel welding, which all of the welders in my riding can do, so it actually is replacement workers, which is contrary to what the members opposite would say.

74 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Feb/26/24 4:43:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to my hon. colleague from Sarnia—Lambton. I respect so much her pioneering work in engineering, but I went to law school. It does not mean I know more, but I do know that replacement workers are one thing only: In trade union relations and collective bargaining, replacement workers are scab workers, not workers who come from another country who do work Canadians could otherwise do.

72 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/26/24 4:44:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. I am not surprised that she supports the bill, because she is a woman with progressive values who generally supports this type of bill. We are very pleased to hear that, because, as we know, the Bloc Québécois is strongly in favour of this bill. During her speech, I also appreciated her recognition of Quebec's pioneering role in this type of legislation. Quebec has had anti-scab legislation like this for 47 years and, since then, there have been two classes of workers in Quebec due to the federal jurisdiction we are trying to get rid of. We will get it done. We led the way for dental care, pharmacare and child care. Canada is taking its cue from Quebec, and that is a good thing; it makes us happy. When Canada draws inspiration from Quebec like this, does my colleague not think that Canada should also not undermine Quebec by recognizing it and giving it its money? That does not apply to anti-scab legislation, but it will apply to dental care and pharmacare, because the new federal program will bring in another structure and undermine existing structures in Quebec. With all due respect, does she not think the government should give Quebec the money it is owed and create programs for Canada? Obviously, we will be voting in favour of this, as long as it does not hurt Quebec.

252 words